Forewarned: Un-PC gripe inside re: college course content

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I was looking through some courses for ds to do next year via the state U. I tried to pick things that should be innocuous, as far as content goes, such as "Historical Survey of British Lit" and "Greek and Roman Mythology", and "Shakespeare". Am I so naive? All of these managed to incorporate gender/sexuality/religious issues. Sorry, but can't these professors just let the literature speak? Ugh. It really makes me mad.

 

Thank you for listening to my vent!!!

[Oakblossoms]

I'm a University student right now at a State University. It's completely not ok the way some of my Professors treat these issues. All kinds of people have done some horrible things. It's all right to sharpen the iron, it's all right to make people think.

 

It shouldn't be ok to call people who have any belief in a creator complete morons. But, it happens.

 

I'm at a standstill right now and this plays a huge part in it. I'm trying to finish my BA in English. My MLIS won't have any reason for religion to be discussed.

 

If it's public (and just like public school) I believe a professor should really open his own eyes, look around a classroom and acknowledge that his students come from all walks of life. Discuss the literature, what happened during that period. Does it have an impact on today? Don't berate people then or now. It's really illogical and it's hard for me to take out more loans and owe more money for idiots. I've found some gems, though.

 

Rant over.

[Michelle in MO]

I found the same to be true in lit. classes I took in college. There always seemed to be a particular political agenda attached. Of course, one could say that any professor will slant or gear their rhetoric towards their particular beliefs, which is true.

 

However, I wish that professors would at least try to allow the lit. to speak for itself. Some of the PC stuff you find at colleges, of course, depends upon the school. My alma mater was particularly liberal, so it was nearly impossible to avoid; not wanting to get into issues of religion/gender/sexuality there seemed at times like being a Christian in Nero's Rome.

 

There are other colleges which will take a more conservative slant (if that's what you're looking for).

[Myrtle]

I was looking through some courses for ds to do next year via the state U. I tried to pick things that should be innocuous, as far as content goes, such as "Historical Survey of British Lit" and "Greek and Roman Mythology", and "Shakespeare". Am I so naive? All of these managed to incorporate gender/sexuality/religious issues. Sorry, but can't these professors just let the literature speak? Ugh. It really makes me mad.

 

Thank you for listening to my vent!!!

 

 

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a whole book about this called "Who Killed Homer?"

:001_smile:

 

You are not alone.

[Oakblossoms]

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a whole book about this called "Who Killed Homer?"

:001_smile:

 

You are not alone.

 

Well goody, goody...I needed one book to make my reading list to 50!!!

[Alyce]

It's always been a controversial subject especially when studying certain kinds of literature. My dd studied mythology this sememster and controversial stuff was in it. People can find anything they want just about anywhere they want and they don't have to try very hard. That's why it's so important to give them a great foundation now before they go off on their own.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I was looking through some courses for ds to do next year via the state U. I tried to pick things that should be innocuous, as far as content goes, such as "Historical Survey of British Lit" and "Greek and Roman Mythology", and "Shakespeare". Am I so naive? All of these managed to incorporate gender/sexuality/religious issues. Sorry, but can't these professors just let the literature speak? Ugh. It really makes me mad.

 

Thank you for listening to my vent!!!

 

Hmm. Well, I do hear and sympathize with your frustration, but I think literature study in a university definitely should and will cover those issues in depth. In fact, in high school lit, dd and ds cover[ed] these issues, because the literature covers or raises those issues. It's a big part of what it means to be human, and a good class is going to come back to that humanity again and again.

 

It think that the heads up that these issues *will* be covered is a good thing since they are issues you want to avoid at this level/age for your son. That way, you won't be in for a nasty surprise by signing up for a seemingly innocuous class and then getting more depth in these aspects of the literature than you want.

[Oakblossoms]

The problem, for me actually, is not that it's discussed. I know what happens, why people do things, that people did things, why it hurts, why people are defensive about issues.

 

But, it's not logical to be studying literature (or just about any subject for that matter) and to actually call students and their belief systems/ideology etc. absolute non-sense (that's a mild term).

[Plaid Dad]

The humanities have been highly politicized for decades now. I'm afraid the great triumvirate (oops, that's sexist!) of race, class, and gender is not likely to dislodged any time soon.

 

Have you seen the ISI college guides? They are helpful for navigating the political minefield that is today's college curriculum.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

The problem, for me actually, is not that it's discussed. I know what happens, why people do things, that people did things, why it hurts, why people are defensive about issues.

 

But, it's not logical to be studying literature (or just about any subject for that matter) and to actually call students and their belief systems/ideology etc. absolute non-sense (that's a mild term).

 

Many professors do that, though, everywhere and no matter what their "bent." They tell the people that disagree with them to use their head and start thinking correctly (read: like they think). At BJU, lots of people were told they were lacking sense, most of them in abstentia to a chorus of "amen." I was once told I lacked sense because I used the word "prehistoric" to refer to the period of time in a civilization before its history was written. But, alas for me, according to that professor, there was no such thing as "prehistory," and I was showing my deep ignorance.

 

I'm a weirdo who actually loves being challenged, though. :)

[pmegan]

Just to play devil's advocate, but literature is rife with all the issues that you mention. These are the subjects that the world revolves around, that make good drama, and most literature reflects that. How can you read Shakespeare, and his various cross-dressing females, or the Brontes without discussing gender and sexuality? How can you read Greek and Roman myths without discussing religion and gender? What is there left to discuss if you leave out all the subtext?

[pmegan]

But, it's not logical to be studying literature (or just about any subject for that matter) and to actually call students and their belief systems/ideology etc. absolute non-sense (that's a mild term).

 

A good professor doesn't do that. He (or she) should open discussion and take each student's opinion into account. I went to a very liberal college, but there were still plenty of students who presented opposing world-views, and I never once heard a professor disrespect them or their opinions.

[Brigitte]

Hmm. Well, I do hear and sympathize with your frustration, but I think literature study in a university definitely should and will cover those issues in depth. In fact, in high school lit, dd and ds cover[ed] these issues, because the literature covers or raises those issues. It's a big part of what it means to be human, and a good class is going to come back to that humanity again and again.

 

It think that the heads up that these issues *will* be covered is a good thing since they are issues you want to avoid at this level/age for your son. That way, you won't be in for a nasty surprise by signing up for a seemingly innocuous class and then getting more depth in these aspects of the literature than you want.

 

I think the problem is that it is a very one-sided discussion of these subjects and that a lot of professors (and high school teachers, for that matter) read a lot into the literature that just isn't there. The basics of the literature (or any other subject) are not being covered and they are being taught from an "I feel" perspective.

 

Professors are under an enormous amount of pressure to publish and in order to publish, they need "original" things to say about their subject. You find a lot of them really reaching for that unique approach.

 

If you are looking for a more straight forward approach to teaching literature, you are going to be hard pressed to find it at a state school.

 

Just my.02.

[Gwen in VA]

Considering that my older kids are going into chemistry/arthistory/economics/math, we shouldn't even be looking at the history and English courses at potential colleges, right?

 

To an amazing degree, my kids chose what colleges to apply to based on the English and history courses and requirements, even though neither of them is going to take more than a token class in either area. Basically, those areas seem to be the "canary in the coal mine" that indicate how PC / liberal / politicized a college is.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Pmegan, PSFSOM,

 

I agree that the issues I mentioned in the OP are (sometimes) part of literature. I'm not opposed to discussions of gender, sexuality and religion, per se. I'm not that naive. What I am opposed to is injection of gender, sexuality and religious (or anti-religious) agendas into the discussion. Here's what I mean. Let's say, for the sake of a silly example, I'm reading Cinderella in my college English class. My professor carefully leads the class through a detailed analysis, in which we discover that the only reason Cinderella had to sit among the ashes was because she lived in a male-dominated world--a world in which (male, Christian) bishops dictated the role of women and opressed them. Cinderella's step-mother and sisters were only able to escape the same fate because of their wealth--obtained through s*xual favors which eventually led to marriage. In fact, this s*xual subjagation was the only reason that Cinderalla's father married Cinderella's step-mother at all. This "forced" marriage (out of necessity for financial survival), inspired Cinderella's step-mother with intense hatred for her husband's beautiful daughter. It is also suspected that the step-mother was of a sado-m*sochistic nature, thus further intensifying her need to punish Cinderella. But she cannot be harshly judged, for women of her era were forced to choose between a life of luxury (in which their ideals were compromised) and a life of slavery (in which they were opressed even further). In fact, the step-mother might be viewed as heroic, in some respects, for daring to defy the Christian "virtue" of chastity--which had been instituted for the benefit of promiscuous, yet controlling males--in order to lift herself and her daughters from the miserable life with which they were faced. As for Prince Charming, well, I'd better not mention him too much here, but let's just say he didn't like girls at all and was just going along with societal norms in order to avoid persecution.

 

Ok, so this is rather a farce, but not so much different from things I've read in the news about actual things being taught in college clasrooms. So now do you see what I mean? Of course this happens from both sides (as Pam pointed out), but that does not justify it happening at all.

 

Just wanted to add, I'm not trying to be snarky or antagonistic or ... whatever other negative words might be appropriate. I'm just using this example to make a point, not to direct animosity at Pmegan or Pam or anyone else in particular other than irresponsible college profs.:blush:

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Considering that my older kids are going into chemistry/arthistory/economics/math, we shouldn't even be looking at the history and English courses at potential colleges, right?

 

Ha, the one course I did find that ds may take is econ! But maybe it will have some issues, too.

 

I totally agree with the canary in the coal mine thing. Smart move!

[Jugglin'5]

I thought I wanted to be an English major until my Intro Lit professor spent the whole semester (yes - the whole semester), emphasizing that Dante's Inferno was nothing but a bunch of v*g*nal imagery. :001_huh: It was too much for this freshman. I switched to Poli Sci and History, which were actually less political, not to mention disgusting.

[JennifersLost]

I had one college English class in which the professor went on a tirade because I suggested that most of the women in the class were pursuing a degree to help land jobs in the future. His take? We were all there to get married and I was an idiot if I thought any different. It would have been nice to have a "liberal" in the classroom who would have at least been a bit more in tune with the reality of the 1990s.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Ok, so this is rather a farce, but not so much different from things I've read in the news about actual things being taught in college clasrooms. So now do you see what I mean? Of course this happens from both sides (as Pam pointed out), but that does not justify it happening at all.

 

I do see, but are you absolutely sure that this is the direction (to the ridiculous extreme) that the class will go based on the course catalog? If I were to describe the content of the courses you mentioned, I expect that I would mention those issues. How can you know, unless you know something about the professor? Others in this thread share your assumption that there will be strong and strident ultra-liberal bias in the classes, so perhaps I'm the one who is a bit naive.

 

Anyway, I understand better what you mean now. I did think you meant initially that you disapproved of a university class discussing such themes as they occurred in the writing. There are some people who are appalled by such things.

[Teddi]

LOVED your example!!! LOL!!

 

This is exactly why we will wait to take our Lit. classes until we get to the Christian college of our choice.

 

Pmegan, PSFSOM,

 

I agree that the issues I mentioned in the OP are (sometimes) part of literature. I'm not opposed to discussions of gender, sexuality and religion, per se. I'm not that naive. What I am opposed to is injection of gender, sexuality and religious (or anti-religious) agendas into the discussion. Here's what I mean. Let's say, for the sake of a silly example, I'm reading Cinderella in my college English class. My professor carefully leads the class through a detailed analysis, in which we discover that the only reason Cinderella had to sit among the ashes was because she lived in a male-dominated world--a world in which (male, Christian) bishops dictated the role of women and opressed them. Cinderella's step-mother and sisters were only able to escape the same fate because of their wealth--obtained through s*xual favors which eventually led to marriage. In fact, this s*xual subjagation was the only reason that Cinderalla's father married Cinderella's step-mother at all. This "forced" marriage (out of necessity for financial survival), inspired Cinderella's step-mother with intense hatred for her husband's beautiful daughter. It is also suspected that the step-mother was of a sado-m*sochistic nature, thus further intensifying her need to punish Cinderella. But she cannot be harshly judged, for women of her era were forced to choose between a life of luxury (in which their ideals were compromised) and a life of slavery (in which they were opressed even further). In fact, the step-mother might be viewed as heroic, in some respects, for daring to defy the Christian "virtue" of chastity--which had been instituted for the benefit of promiscuous, yet controlling males--in order to lift herself and her daughters from the miserable life with which they were faced. As for Prince Charming, well, I'd better not mention him too much here, but let's just say he didn't like girls at all and was just going along with societal norms in order to avoid persecution.

 

[Brigitte]

I do see, but are you absolutely sure that this is the direction (to the ridiculous extreme) that the class will go based on the course catalog? If I were to describe the content of the courses you mentioned, I expect that I would mention those issues. How can you know, unless you know something about the professor? QUOTE]

 

I think you can generally tell from the course description the direction of the course. The course despriptions and course titles, while short, are often written to be somewhat provacative (I don't necessarily mean in a sexual sense) in order to get students to sign up for the course. We saw it when we were at UVA and even conferences would do the same with titles and descriptions of the sessions.

 

Remember they are trying to entice 18-22 year olds to sign up and these are kids who have been desensitized in large part to these things. A "plain" course in English Lit would seem boring in contrast.

 

Okay, back to laundry....

[Sandy in Indy]

My dd's Intro to Lit course, first semester of college, was a travesty. The entire semester was spent on "tolerance" (except there was no tolerance of my dd's beliefs). Not one piece of quality literature was read--not one! Twenty years ago, I had the same Intro course at the same school--and among other things we read Plato, Dante and Kafka. Every piece dd read that semester was by a modern writer that I'd never heard of. I was really disappointed in the quality of the course--talk about lowering your standards.

 

Between that and the science course where she was called an idiot for believing in creationism, I was ready to send her somewhere else...but she really wanted to live at home and this school was still the best choice for her. Disappointing, though, very disappointing. It has, however, made her stronger in her faith (unlike many kids who hear those challenges and walk away from their faith).

[mcconnellboys]

Oh, my, you should have seen the sex in the Greek Mythology class my ds took! I'm very pragmatic. I told him those men just couldn't write without incorporating all sorts of phallic symbolism, discussion, etc., LOL.... Sorta like grown up potty language. He got past it and was okay with it, but was embarrassed by it at first.....

[Michelle in MO]

the professors interject some pretty bizarre interpretations of literature (and history, might I add?) in order to get their viewpoint across.

 

Vmsurbat mentioned a week or so ago (on these boards) this incident that she experienced in a lit. class:

 

Ever since my freshman lit class at university where the Prof. saw Sherlock Holmes's pipe on the mantel as a phallic symbol, I've been disinterested in finding "the deeper meanings" in a book.

 

 

I had to take so many "honors" classes per year where I went to school, and one of them was entitled "Marx, Marxism, and Classical Antiquity". Our Marxist professor was trying to "prove" that the decline of the Greek city-states was intrinsically related to the fact that Greek society needed to evolve into the socialist structures which was the intended end of Marxist determinism. It was truly my most bizarre class in college.

 

I think I understand, however, what Pam "SFSOM" in TN, was trying to say about her experience at BJU. I consider myself to be a Christian and conservative, yet I can understand her frustration in that situation. That seems to be an example of another type of political correctness, and it's unfortunate. It always grieves me to read of these situations.

 

I guess all in all, though, as parents we try to steer our children towards colleges that will, to some degree, support the basic beliefs we've tried to instill in our children, or at least try not to undermine those beliefs. Obviously, there are going to be variations in interpretations of literature, but some professors go far beyond the scope of the book and reach for far-flung interpretations of literature (and history), like the one Vmsurbat mentioned above. It's too bad, because there are so many worthwhile themes to discuss just in reading books without searching for a particular agenda.

[In The Great White North]

I'd be interested in knowing which colleges don't do this. It would help narrow our college search dramatically.

[kathleen]

I'd be interested in knowing which colleges don't do this. It would help narrow our college search dramatically.

 

University of Dallas, Hillsdale, Grove City, Gutenberg, New St. Andrews, Patrick Henry, to name just a few. A good resource is All American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I'd be interested in knowing which colleges don't do this. It would help narrow our college search dramatically.

 

Another great resource are books by ISI, mentioned above by Plaid Dad. Choosing the Right College is one. The only drawback is that they only talk about so many.

[kathleen]

Another great resource are books by ISI, mentioned above by Plaid Dad. Choosing the Right College is one. The only drawback is that they only talk about so many.

 

Right! The book I mentioned above is an ISI publication. Sort of like a sister book to Choosing, but focusing on more conservative colleges.

[summer]

I went to Iowa State.....talk about a stiffling athiest and racist (against anyone white or Asian, I don't recall hispanics there). I cannot even stand paying back student loans to there.

 

Of course, then when I switched to a school in the south, it was far better, but the sexism was impossible to deal with.

[Laura Corin]

I agree that the issues I mentioned in the OP are (sometimes) part of literature. I'm not opposed to discussions of gender, sexuality and religion, per se. I'm not that naive. What I am opposed to is injection of gender, sexuality and religious (or anti-religious) agendas into the discussion. Here's what I mean. Let's say, for the sake of a silly example, I'm reading Cinderella in my college English class. My professor carefully leads the class through a detailed analysis, in which we discover that the only reason Cinderella had to sit among the ashes was because she lived in a male-dominated world--a world in which (male, Christian) bishops dictated the role of women and opressed them. Cinderella's step-mother and sisters were only able to escape the same fate because of their wealth--obtained through s*xual favors which eventually led to marriage. In fact, this s*xual subjagation was the only reason that Cinderalla's father married Cinderella's step-mother at all. This "forced" marriage (out of necessity for financial survival), inspired Cinderella's step-mother with intense hatred for her husband's beautiful daughter. It is also suspected that the step-mother was of a sado-m*sochistic nature, thus further intensifying her need to punish Cinderella. But she cannot be harshly judged, for women of her era were forced to choose between a life of luxury (in which their ideals were compromised) and a life of slavery (in which they were opressed even further). In fact, the step-mother might be viewed as heroic, in some respects, for daring to defy the Christian "virtue" of chastity--which had been instituted for the benefit of promiscuous, yet controlling males--in order to lift herself and her daughters from the miserable life with which they were faced. As for Prince Charming, well, I'd better not mention him too much here, but let's just say he didn't like girls at all and was just going along with societal norms in order to avoid persecution.

 

It's perhaps not the analysis that I would make, and I would expect to be allowed to argue with it, but I don't see anything wrong with unusual opinions.

 

Laura

[Janice H]

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a whole book about this called "Who Killed Homer?"

:001_smile:

 

You are not alone.[/quote

 

:iagree:Who Killed Homer is terrific. It not only has an illuminating and sometimes humorous analysis of college education, it also provides "off the beaten path" recommendations for which translated Greek works to read. For example the authors advise reading Sophocles's play "Ajax" (vs the more commonly assigned Three Theban Plays).

[Mamagistra]

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a whole book about this called "Who Killed Homer?"

:001_smile:

 

You are not alone.

 

Bonfire of the Humanities by Hanson and Bruce Thornton is another good read on the subject.

[LilyK]

It's perhaps not the analysis that I would make, and I would expect to be allowed to argue with it, but I don't see anything wrong with unusual opinions

.

 

I do see something wrong with unusual, or rather absurd, opinions if you are paying thousands of dollars per class to get an education. I went to a big famous school, one of the UC's, and that Cinderalla interpretation was pretty standard fare. I don't think that I was taught to analyze literature, I paid tens of thousands of dollars to find creative ways to read in political and social agenda's that were never intended by the author.

 

Eg. Comparative British Literature- sounds pretty innocuous right?

Teacher's analysis: When Jane Eyre was locked in the room with red walls by her evil aunt, this was just a metaphor for the trauma and agony she endured while experiencing her first menstrual cycle. Get it, the red walls? Neither did I.

 

.

[Jugglin'5]

very rarely are you allowed to disagree with these types of interpretations...

 

 

:iagree:

[Myrtle]

Bonfire of the Humanities by Hanson and Bruce Thornton is another good read on the subject.

 

I have that one also. :)